Live data from Hacker News

US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional

theguardian.com

101–110 of 337 posts

Re: US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional

#101
post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you suggest additional drinking methanol when you're "normally" drunk?? that's dangerously counterfactual.

vice versa > Ethanol is the most commonly used antidote to block the metabolising of methanol. Ethanol works by competing with the metabolic breakdown of methanol, thereby preventing the accumulation of toxic byproducts. MSF: https://methanolpoisoning.msf.org/en/for-health-professional... I can see the ambiguity of my comment. I was trying to phrase as a riddle but can be interpreted both ways.

Same with antifreeze poisoning. If a kid drinks antifreeze, get him wasted to keep the liver busy.

Re: US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional

#102
post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you suggest additional drinking methanol when you're "normally" drunk?? that's dangerously counterfactual.

vice versa > Ethanol is the most commonly used antidote to block the metabolising of methanol. Ethanol works by competing with the metabolic breakdown of methanol, thereby preventing the accumulation of toxic byproducts. MSF: https://methanolpoisoning.msf.org/en/for-health-professional... I can see the ambiguity of my comment. I was trying to phrase as a riddle but can be interpreted both ways.

ah got it. thanks for clarifying!

Re: US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional

#103
post #3

I always thought the reason was that badly distilled drinks were dangerous.

That’s actually a common myth perpetuated by the American government during prohibition. The Feds added methanol to bootlegged hooch to blind people, then they told people they’d go blind from moonshine to discourage it. Distillation doesn’t create alcohols, it only concentrates them. The ratio of ethanol to methanol in a distilled spirit will be approximately the same as in the wash it was distilled from. Drinking b…

> The Feds added methanol to bootlegged hooch

how did that work? did the Feds pose as some false flag bootleggers? do you have some sources I could read up on?

thing is, russia has a large tradition of home distillation (samogonka), and they too have tropes of people going blind. there have been a lot of cases of people dying because of bad alcohol, here's somewhat recent case: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/contaminated-cider-deaths-russi...

Re: US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional

#104
post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is actually a myth. I’ll have to see if I can find the papers I read but mass spectrometry has shown that methanol comes out throughout the entire process. The idea that things come out at their boiling temperature is a drastic oversimplification. Please do find those papers! They may be describing a radical new chemistry that I'm not familiar with. To be clear - methanol boils at 64C and ethanol boils at 78C.…

I suspect that the vapor of the mash is always a mix of the components, and even above the boiling point of methanol, it still produces a mixed vapor. At room temperature, all of the components produce some vapor and will evaporate. This continues as the temperature rises. It's not clear to me that simple distillation of a methanol/ethanol mixture can produce either pure ethanol or pure methanol at any point, just as…

Yup, distillation never produces a pure product. Cask-strength whiskeys contain quite a lot of water, even though nobody is stupid enough to distill at 100C. Even an industrial column still can't go over 96% ABV.

There is always some amount of vapor pressure, even below the boiling point of a substance. Otherwise, neither water nor alcohol would evaporate by themselves at room temperature! The temperature we call the "boiling point" is just the temperature at which the vapor pressure equals the ambient pressure.

Re: US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional

#105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone is talking in circles. As distillation continues the concentration of methanol drops. The highest concentration is at the start. This is also generally full of undesirable flavours. People also forget that ethanol competitively inhibits metabolism of methanol in a way that protects healthy adults from toxicity. A safe alcoholic drink can have methanol in it, iirc it's about 80:1 ethanol:methanol by EU rules.…

Genuine q then. Why don't the destinations serve watered down shots instead? If it is just to save money.

If places are really sketchy, they might be mixing in partially treated industrial or "denatured" alcohol, which has poisonous quantities of methanol and bitterants but are also like 90% ethanol

Re: US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional

#106

As tourists to sketchy places in Asia discovered, methanol poisoning is a real risk, even from large scale distillation. It is the quality control that matters. Illegal stills make quality control impossible, so legalisation and government certified testing can make it safe. However, this ruling is not about alcohol, it is about dissolving Federal authority exercised via the trade and commerce clause of the Constitut…

The common knowledge about methanol being a huge risk is wildly overstated in reality, and likely continues in part because it benefits the government for people to believe strongly in the danger and continue to purchase taxed liquor. Distillation does not create new chemicals: there is methanol in your bottle of wine, and distilling that wine into brandy does not change the ratio, it only removes (primarily) water. Common distilling practice is to dispose of the highest concentrations of the most volatile components (acetaldehyde, higher alcohols). Low levels of methanol remain present in a gradient throughout the distilled product. Methanol production in fermentation is not a significant risk if you're not fermenting woody materials, and its production can be mitigated through the use of pectic enzyme. Methanol IS a risk if you're starting with cheap, untaxed denatured alcohol (ethanol+methanol+bitterants+other crap) as your input, rather than the unadulterated output of a sugar fermentation, and that is mainly what gave rise to the popular methanol folklore.

That said, don't break the law, folks. It's not worth going to prison for tax evasion over a jug of shine. You can get just as tipsy off a couple glasses of fermented supermarket apple juice, and it's legal and cheaper to boot.

Re: US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional

#107

As tourists to sketchy places in Asia discovered, methanol poisoning is a real risk, even from large scale distillation. It is the quality control that matters. Illegal stills make quality control impossible, so legalisation and government certified testing can make it safe. However, this ruling is not about alcohol, it is about dissolving Federal authority exercised via the trade and commerce clause of the Constitut…

The antidote to methanol is just ethanol.

If you find yourself drinking something untrustworthy you can at least cure yourself with a chaser of an equivalent amount of everclear.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanol_toxicity#Treatment

Re: US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional

#108

As tourists to sketchy places in Asia discovered, methanol poisoning is a real risk, even from large scale distillation. It is the quality control that matters. Illegal stills make quality control impossible, so legalisation and government certified testing can make it safe. However, this ruling is not about alcohol, it is about dissolving Federal authority exercised via the trade and commerce clause of the Constitut…

From ~1906 through prohibition the Feds purposely poisoned industrial alcohol with methanol and other chemicals as a deterrent. 100 years ago, in 1926, they increased it, up to as much as 10%. This was true rotgut. Around 10,000 people, mostly poor, died from it. Blindness, organ failure, paralysis. This was legal and regulated by the Volstead Act. It was the primary source of methanol poisoning during prohibition.

Re: US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional

#109
post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saudi Arabia is a famously dry country in all meanings of the word, there's not much fun to be had as an expat unless you make your own.

Why do you need to distill your spirits? If you really need alcohol, can't you drink undistilled beverages to have 'fun'?

Absolutely not

Re: US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional

#110
post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I understood ethanol and methanol form an azeotrope and boil together at a mixed temperature. And the going blind stuff is just prohibition propaganda both to make home distilled alcohol seem dangerous and to scapegoat the fact that the government was actively poisoning "industrial" ethanol.

this is dangerously wrong in several dimensions methanol and ethanol do not form an azeotrope with each other, they only (both, each) bind to water. that's why separation of methanol and ethanol by holding key temperatures works at all. furthermore, the azeotrope effect only becomes relevant at concentrations beyond 90% alcohol. so when you're producing pure methanol and ethanol, then distillation won't cut it beyond…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN